Addressing non Christian clerics by an honorific title?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidetrack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AnAtheist said:
Excuse me, but to think someone is royal is silly. Um, not silly, but not democratic and against all human rights. I treat all people the same way, and just because someone was born with a golden spoon in his or her arse doesn’t make them any better than the rest of us. To give a honorific title to someone who has *earned *it, like a PhD or -sensei, is one thing, to give it to someone just because his ancestors were ruthless enough to plunder and dominate over their fellow citizens, something different. An ordinary name is good enough for them, as it is for anybody else.
A noble wants to be addressed in a special way, and that’s purely his choice? Well, I tell them this: Your neck is as fragile as mine, and here’s a Guillotine to prove it.
Click to expand...
In what way would you violate someones human rights by calling that person your Majesty? Or is it the rights of everyone else I violate if I claim someone is royal? Is it the same with the word ‘‘mother’’? Not to be disrespectful but perhaps you didn’t think that statment through? However, while you can have a democracy with a monarch inheriting their position it is indeed undemocratic that they do inherit it. But calling someone royal in itself is not undemocratic, but since monarchs these days inherit their title it is of course undemocratic, which is what I think you meant, not the word.
Oh, btw, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is just the English translation of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha, they are all half-German anyway.
Click to expand...
So? You can change your last name right? If they have then it is their new name which is the correct one.

But about the topic, I am not sure what I would call, for example Dalai Lama, but I would try to be respectful. Perhaps I would call him ‘‘Your Holiness’’, but just out of respect for him and the people around him and not because of any religious reasons, I am not sure if I would call him that though.
 
I know that I would be very honoured to meet the Dalai Lama. I would, without doubt, address him as ‘Your Holiness’. I am absolutely certain that if His Holiness Benedict PP XVI was to meet him he would call him ‘His Holiness’ rather than Mr. Gyatso. But, then, of course, The Pope is a very courteous man.
 
Hm, I have to admit that I find the whole ‘Father, Brother, Sister, Mother’ title thing difficult.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because they’re not in that kind of relationship to me - with a Christian they could be said to be ‘sister in Christ’ or whatever but with a Jew they’re not.

It’s not exactly often that I get introduced to members of Catholic clergy, of course, but I do find it difficult to deal with. Fortunately, the few I have been in close contact with (professional stuff) have helped me out with “Call me Geoff,” or whatever.
 
There is nothing sillier than styles and titles when you think too hard about them. However I always remember the advice of my old parish priest when asked about how to address Ministers of other Churches. He said: call people what they call themselves. Otherwise you will end up introducing people as ‘Mr Smith and his so-called wife Freda’. Excellent advice. if you want to tell the Dalai Lama he is not reincarnated, or the Pope that he is not a representative of a non-existent person of a non-existent Trinity, then have the courage to do so. Don’t hint at it by being discourteous about their titles!
 
Friends have historically not offered “honorific” to individuals…instead addressing them as “Friend __________” This was due to the understanding in the 16th century that one must always address ones “betters” with respect…Friends believed in equality between all people…so would use “thee” informal instead of the "you’ formal that was expected from those being addressed from a “higher class”…the same for “honorific”…but the “testimony” of our equality isn’t as much an issue now…Most Friends have no problems with “honorfic” titles.
 
The Dali Llama is such a busy man that I doubt anyone on this forum would be rude enough to go through the trouble of meeting him and calling him anything other than “Your Holiness”. Let’s be realistic about that. Those who think he is too silly to address by his proper title shouldn’t bother meeting with him in the first place.

As for the Queen of England, she is a sovereign. She embodies the authority of the British and Common Wealth nations. By speaking to her, you’d be speaking to the countries she leads. Her title “Your Majesty” reflects this, not her authority over oneself. You’d call the ambassador from another county “ambassador” because that the title he holds from another sovereign nation; likewise you would call the Queen “Your Majesty”, because she is personally another sovereignty.
 
You can use the title, but you have to make “quotation” “marks” with your fingers beside your head while saying it. That way it doesn’t “count”. 😉
 
Kaninchen said:
I was merely trying to point out that non-Christians can have ‘mirror’ problems to those of Christians addressing non-Christian clerics.
Click to expand...
I address the congregational leader at the local Lutheran church as pastor even though he is younger than my daughter, I use the term Rabbi, I would use the term Imam if the occasion arose and for my Catholic clerics and religious I use Father, Brother and Sister even though most are far younger than I am I not of any familial importance other than being my kindred under God. It is you who have the problem with terms of respect, don’t try to imply everyone does. You apparently do not understand the social importance of terms of respect particularly those with religious connotations, to me it is another sign of the degradation of society.
 
By calling him the Dalai Lama, you are in fact conferring a title on him- that’s his title, not his name. By adding “his holiness”, you are affirming belief in his title and position.

That society has taken to doing this automatically without regard to the meaning, is irrelevant in the Christian milieu.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
I address the congregational leader at the local Lutheran church as pastor even though he is younger than my daughter, I use the term Rabbi, I would use the term Imam if the occasion arose and for my Catholic clerics and religious I use Father, Brother and Sister even though most are far younger than I am I not of any familial importance other than being my kindred under God. It is you who have the problem with terms of respect, don’t try to imply everyone does. You apparently do not understand the social importance of terms of respect particularly those with religious connotations, to me it is another sign of the degradation of society.
Click to expand...
Right, well, in future refer to me as Dr Kaninchen so as not to further degrade society.
 
Kaninchen said:
Right, well, in future refer to me as Dr Kaninchen so as not to further degrade society.
Click to expand...
But if you wanted to be called that, then why not register AS “Dr. Kaninchen”?

I have no problem calling you Doctor, if in fact you have earned a degree which confers such a title.

Do you truly wish to be called Doctor? And if so, to what end are we able to determine such a title is correct and within socially accepted perimeters for its use?

Using this line of thinking, are you ready to start referring to Jesus as Son of God?

as for the quote you responded to, the poster is confusing titles of position with attributes of the person holding the position. In such a case, you are fully right in him calling you Dr. Kaninchen. The issue isn’t titles. “His Holiness” refers to attributes of the title of “Dalai Lama”, attributes he does not have as a man in the context of the earlier usage of the title. In fact, the very position of the Dalai Lama is from no earlier than the 14th century, but actually from the 15th century and retroactively applied to the first 2. Even still, as I have pointed out prior, the position and title was relatively unknown in the world until China’s actions in Tibet in this and last century.

Catholics are very distinct in this title and how it applies to the Pope and that is the difference.
 
jonbhorton said:
But if you wanted to be called that, then why not register AS “Dr. Kaninchen”?
Click to expand...
Because it would be pretentious but, having been taken to task for undermining society by having problems with certain titles, I thought that I might do a little to save it by allowing the poster concerned to do something to stop the slippery slide to perdition.
 
jonbhorton said:
Catholics are very distinct in this title and how it applies to the Pope and that is the difference.
Click to expand...
Thing is, I have much less of a problem with reverend, eminence, grace, bishop, etc which can be treated purely as honorifics - as I said, it’s the father/brother/sister/mother thing which implies the ‘relationship in Christ’.
 
Kaninchen said:
Thing is, I have much less of a problem with reverend, eminence, grace, bishop, etc which can be treated purely as honorifics - as I said, it’s the father/brother/sister/mother thing which implies the ‘relationship in Christ’.
Click to expand...
If I met a rabbi (from any branch of Judaism - unless that bothers you) how would you expect me to address him. If he were called John Smith should I call him Mr. Smith, Dr. Smith (assume he has a PhD), Rabbi Smith, or John.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
If I met a rabbi (from any branch of Judaism - unless that bothers you) how would you expect me to address him. If he were called John Smith should I call him Mr. Smith, Dr. Smith (assume he has a PhD), Rabbi Smith, or John.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your problem since you wouldn’t regard him as a teacher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top